BosNet Digest V5 #11 / Jan. 7, 1996

From: Nermin Zukic <n6zukic@SMS.BUSINESS.UWO.CA>

CONTENTS

This article contains several writing on the role of EU's Carl Bildt,
including reviews of several editorials/commentaries regarding CB's
role past, present and future role in B&H

The following article was submitted to "Dagens Nyheter", the largest Swedish
newspaper on December the 17th. It was refused for publication, as was another
article on Carl Bildt which appeared in misc.news.bosnia in June. The Swedish
central press does not want anything to be published which can harm the image
of Carl Bildt, the great European Swede. It is somewhat ironic that the
Swedish establishment now is very eager to contribute to Bosnia their mastery
of democracy (freedom of press etc)....

Actually, "Let Bosnia Live" of Sweden finds it highly important to unveil
the role of Carl Bildt, in order to show that he is the wrong man in the
wrong place to promote reconstruction and reconciliation in Bosnia.

Given the role of the so called "Great Powers" in Europe, it is of course no
coincidence that Carl Bildt has been assigned to this task.

Congratulations on the Peace, Carl Bildt

A so-called historic peace agreement has now been signed in Paris. Historic
indeed, in the sense that a new chapter of shame has been written on the
continent that discovered, nourished and with the cost of millions of lives,
defeated fascism. It is now apparant that this defeat was only temporary.

The agreement means the recognition of a fascist mini-state - "Republika
Srpska" - in the middle Europe, disguised as a so-called "entity within
the borders of Bosnia-Hercegovina". This monstrous state has arisen as a
result of a genocide whose methods are on the same scale of cruelty as
the most violent and repugnant centuries of the Middle Ages.

Despite that the agreement has been sold to the general public opinion as a
"compromise", it implies fundamental concessions to the power politics which
has tirelessly been conducted chiefly by France and Britain, whose purpose
has been to back Serbia and to divide Bosnia-Hercegovina. The actions of
these nations has principally been the following:

To deliberately use its soldiers as hostages and human shields to prevent
the Bosnian government being given the air-support it pleaded for in order
to break off the ongoing massacre of the civilian population.

An intensive diplomatic activity designed to deny the victim the right
and possibility to self-defence. This activity can not be seen as anything
less than an act of pure aggression - given the fact that the newly recognised
republic in the opening shots of the war was practically defenceless against
one of Europe's stronger military powers - and moreover a clear violation
against the charter of the United Nations.

A systematic re-conveyance of the propaganda surrounding the so-called
"ethnic war", despite the fact that the world was witnessing a war of
aggression - planned, staged and executed from Belgrade, with the support
of a fifth column of Bosnian Serb ultranationalists. One was not afraid to
re-convey pure propaganda of the most vulgar nature which stated that
the victim was engaged in massacring its very own people.

A laborious diplomatic effort designed to give space to the Russian
power politics - which tactically coincided with those of the Serbian
ultranationalists. This was done to balance the strong tendancies in the
United States to counter the aggression with a resolute backing of the
Bosnian Government.

In reality one has rewarded the aggressor with most of the consequences of
his crimes against humanity, whilst threats and blackmail has forced the
victim to partial capitulation and to give up the vision of a democratic
and multi-ethnic society. These facts will not be able to be hidden in the
long run by any "peace" rhetoric.

Nonetheless, the better a European one is, the more one will celebrate the
agreement as a victory of common-sense and humanity.

And Carl Bildt, as Sweden's most European Swede, is the one who will
celebrate most of all, despite the serious facades that the situation requires.

It is against this background that I find it appropriate to ask Carl Bildt
the following questions:

Mr. Bildt,

During your time as Primeminister, you never gave the Bosnian Government
explicit support against the fascists, introducing instead the "Birds of
a Feather" theory in which an aggressor and a victim were systematically
equally pared. This stance was the norm that would hold as the Swedish
foreign policy with respect to the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Opposition to this policy, as aired in the Swedish Parliament, was met with
solid silence and a new all time low was passed when your only comment
concerning the Sarajevo market-place massacre was to declare on Swedish
television that "there are bandits on all sides among those who fight in
the Bosnian mountains - a solution may only come about as a result of
negotiations". Were these actions a result of a lack of knowledge concerning
the existence of a victim and an aggressor, or were they as a result of an
adaptation to the foreign policy of France and Britain?

You continuously rallied against the appeal of the Republic of
Bosnia-Hercegovina to defend itself against aggression, in accordance to
article 51 of the United Nations charter. Is this done out of contempt for
the UN charter or as an adaptation to the policies of France and Britain?

In May 1994 you travelled to Washington where you stated the so-called
"European" line for denying the victim the right to self-defence. You
stressed there that threats concerning air raids must be proposed without
discrimination against all sides. Which crime had the Bosnian Government
been guilty of which warranted your insistence that one should bomb the
actual victims of the genocide?

In June of this year Thorvald Stoltenberg delivered pure Serbian
nationalist propaganda to a group of Norwegian Government officials which,
when the affair reached the press, he subsequently strenuously denied. In
order to support him, you appeared on Swedish television to state an even
greater lie that 40 Norwegian journalists had witnessed in writing that
Stoltenberg had not made the assumed statements. At this occasion you
actually described the Bosnian Ambassador to Sweden as a encumbrance to
his country, upon his criticism of Stoltenberg. This was before the entire
fabrication was revealed for what it was. Have you ever regretted this
behaviour of yours? Have you at any occasion delivered an apology to the
Bosnian Ambassador in Sweden?

At the time of one of the most macaber massacres Europe has ever
witnessed, you were seated in Belgrade, negotiating with the instigator
of the genocide and protector of the ultranationalist butchers - Slobodan
Milosevic. It has later been learnt that the French generals refused to
give Srebrenica air support in order to protect the town's civil population
with the purpose of "not disturbing the ongoing negotiations in Belgrade".
Shortly after the fall of Srebrenica you made an assurance on the Swedish
radio that you had received promises from Milosevic to the effect that the
International Red Cross would be granted access to the camps containing the
civilians of Srebrenica. When, one day later, this hadn't happened, you
alleged that there had arisen "practical problems". You have not returned
to this matter since that time. In retrospect, it has been made quite clear
that such camps never existed - these civilians were massacred as quickly
as the fascist murder machine could undertake - promptly burying and
bulldozing the corpses into massgraves. Your objective purpose during
these days was therefore to mislead the public opinion and you thence
became a messenger of Milosevic's lies. Have you at any occasion reflected
enough to regret this indirect support of one of the worst atrocities of
the post-war period?

You were swift to assert, with the re-occupation of Knin, that Franjo
Tudjman was a war criminal.You were right in the fact that abuses did occur
when Croatia re-occupied parts of its internationally recognised territory
but it is clear that Knin was mainly intact after it had fallen to the
Croatian force. This was not the case when one considers the Croatian
town of Vukovar which was captured by Milosevic's forces after it had
systematically been levelled to the ground. Nonetheless, you have never
accused Milosevic of being a war criminal - even with Vukovar and the
dismemberment of Bosnia behind him.

Did you consider the period for Milosevic's prosecution to have expired, or
was it again a question of adapting to the politics of France and Britain
in these questions?

I have now concluded my questions to you, Carl Bildt.

Whilst waiting for answer, I can not help myself in wondering whether it
is a historical coincidence, or whether it is a part of the essence of the
Moderate Party that when it is most needed, the Moderate Party is simply
not capable of making a clear distinction between themselves and fascists.
As we know, the same tendencies prevailed 60 years ago.

There are strong movements in the Swedish establishment that would like to
see Carl Bildt declared "Swedish person of the Year". I have difficulty
understanding this need in subjectingSweden to share the shame and
degradation which he has incurred. The "Dagens Nyheter" newspaper has, in
an editorial, declared Bildt as the country's next Primeminister due to his
striving for peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina. It is difficult to think of a more
devastating irony - this
is a newspaper which gave the freedom prize to the Sarajevo-based Oslobodenje.

Personally speaking, I find it hair-raising to think that one of the highest
protectors of the new ethnofascism should be the man to tackle one of
Sweden's most serious current problems -
that of xenophopbia, racism and the dawning domestic fascism.

The Bosnia peace agreement signed in Paris last week not only provides
for an international peacekeeping force to oversee the military aspects
of the Dayton accord.

It also provides for civilian monitoring of the accord's political
provisions. These govern such critically important issues as the
investigation of war crimes, election arrangements, refugee relief and
resettlement and the distribution of $6 billion of international
reconstruction aid.

The nations sponsoring the agreement have handed the execution of these
political provisions to Carl Bildt to supervise. He is a former Swedish
prime minister who has served since June as the European Union's
diplomatic mediator in the Balkans.

Bildt starts his new job burdened with a reputation for accepting Bosnian
Serb claims of good behavior at face value and overlooking evidence of
atrocities against civilians.

He mainly acquired that reputation when Bosnian Serb forces overran
Srebrenica in July. Bildt announced a deal allowing Red Cross access to
the male civilians the Serbs said they were holding prisoner. But the
Serbs had deceived him. The Red Cross visits never took place and
thousands of the prisoners were killed.

Bildt wields more diplomatic leverage, with billions of dollars in aid
money under his direct control, 60,000 NATO troops reinforcing
international authority in Bosnia and automatic U.N. sanctions available
against any side that fails to cooperate in the war crimes
investigations.

He needs to use that leverage to make sure the Srebrenica massacre and
other atrocities like it do not go unpunished. He can do so by insisting
that the International Tribunal be given full access to all the
information, sites and individuals it needs to carry out its work.

He also must insure that free elections take place on schedule with
convicted war criminals barred from office, that millions of refugees can
either return home or receive fair compensation and that international
aid is used for its intended purposes. Most of all, he must help the
peoples of Bosnia infuse reality into the paper structures of regional
and central government sketched out by negotiators at Dayton.

Bildt, who still serves as Sweden's opposition leader and nourishes
political ambitions back home, has surprisingly suggested that he intends
to divide his calendar between Sweden and the Balkans. Bosnia is not a
part-time job. If Bildt cannot understand that, someone else should be
found who can.

Critics of the Bosnia peace agreement have reasonably noted that 60,000
troops with strictly limited goals and a 12-month withdrawal target
cannot assure a lasting peace. The political side of the peace agreement
is not their business. It is the business of Bildt, and the world will be
watching closely to see if he handles it with the fairness and vigor that
is required.

To the Editor:

Re ``Mr. Bildt's Responsibility in Bosnia'' (editorial, Dec. 17): You
rightly point at the critical importance of civilian and political
implementation of the Bosnian peace agreement in order to secure long-
term peace, stability and justice in this war-torn country.

In underlining the importance of my function as High Representative for
monitoring the implementation of the peace agreement and coordinating its
civilian aspects, you make some mistakes that need correcting.

To claim that I see it as a half-time job is false, and I have made it
clear in Sweden as elsewhere that this will be my full-time occupation
during the next crucial year.

It is true that I tried with all the means available to secure access
for the Red Cross to Srebrenica after its fall, and it is equally true
that the Bosnian Serbs have so far not lived up to the formal commitments
to the United Nations commanders that they entered into in this respect.

We sought to secure that speedy access precisely because of the reports
of atrocities we started to get from refugees, and I thus find it
difficult to see how these efforts could be taken as a sign of
``accepting'' Bosnian Serb claims of good behavior at face value.'' If
anything, it was the contrary.

The story of Srebrenica is the tragic story of the gulf between
rhetoric in New York and reality in Bosnia that was so often there during
the past few years. The United Nations Security Council was far more
ready to issue resolutions than to give the means that would have been
necessary to live up to them. I hope we have all learned that lesson by
now.

You seem to overestimate the powers of the High Representative. His
powers are not to execute or enforce but to monitor and coordinate. In
contrast to the military implementation with its distinct chain of
command and single-key approach, the civilian implementation structures
have numerous chains of command and multiple keys.

The difficulties ahead should certainly not be underestimated, and it
will require a massive mobilization not only of financial resources to
help with reconstruction but also of political will and determination on
the side of the international community to make true peace -- as distinct
from just the absence of war -- come to the peoples of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

Carl Bildt
Geneva, Dec. 18, 1995

(Please first read Carl Bildt's reply in the December 21, 1995 New York Times.)
(Cross-posting permitted)

[Commentary by Tom W.]

Carl Bildt's reply to the New York Times deserves the closest scrutiny by
supporters of the Tribunal. Mr. Bildt has, in effect, given us his view of
what is -- and is not -- his responsibility as High Representative under
the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Recall that the Times made 5 points about Mr. Bildt:

Mr. Bildt was naive about Bosnian Serb claims of good faith. Example: His
behavior during and after Srebrenica.

Unlike before, Mr. Bildt now has real diplomatic power: He controls aid
money, he has 60,000 troops reinforcing international authority in
Bosnia, and he can automatically reimpose sanctions against any side
that fails to cooperate with war crimes investigations.

Mr. Bildt needs to use his power to investigate Srebrenica and other
massacres, and to ensure that free elections take place on schedule
with convicted war criminals barred from office.

The crucial paragraph in Bildt's reply is the next-to-the-last:

You seem to overestimate the powers of the High Representative. His
powers are not to execute or enforce but to monitor and coordinate. In
contrast to the military implementation with its distinct chain of
command and single-key approach, the civilian implementation structures
have numerous chains of command and multiple keys.

The most charitable view of this paragraph is that Mr. Bildt is
dangerously misinformed about his own job description. U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1022 gives the High Representative the power, on his own
if need be, to re-impose sanctions against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (FRY) if the FRY or the Bosnian Serbs fail in their obligations,
including the obligation to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and, in the
Constitution of BiH, to turn indicted war criminals over to The Hague for
trial. Provided he has the backing of one permanent member of the Security
Council, sanctions go back on 5 days later. In addition, under Annex 11,
the Commissioner of the International Police Task Force (IPTF) reports to
the High Representative, who can decide what to do if the Bosnian Serbs,
just to take an example, fail to carry out an IPTF "request" to arrest
indicted war criminals. Under Annex 6, the human rights ombudsman reports
to the High Representative any failures to carry out her recommendations.
It is up to the High Representative to decide what to do.

Mr. Bildt's letter speaks of having "learned" our "lesson," but if there
is any lesson to be learned from the economic sanctions and airstrikes that
brought the Serbs to the bargaining table that gave Mr. Bildt his present
job, the lesson was this one: As between "execute or enforce" and "monitor
and coordinate" in Bosnia, one works and the other doesn't -- full stop.

I must make brief mention of Mr. Bildt's incredible statement that "The
story of Srebrenica is the tragic story of the gulf between rhetoric in New
York and reality in Bosnia...." Wrong. The story of Srebrenica was the
story of mass murder and genocide. Regardless of whether the U.N. should
have set up the Srebrenica "safe area" without the force to back it up --
and on this I agree with Mr. Bildt -- the commanders who ordered
Srebrenica, not the U.N., are responsible for ordering the killing of 5,500
unarmed men in cold blood, including -- according to the judge who signed
the indictment for Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic -- making a
grandfather eat his grandson's liver. If Mr. Bildt dismisses the murder of
5,500 unarmed men as part of the "reality in Bosnia," and if he's not
prepared to do something about it, then Mr. Bildt has, by his own words,
proven two of the New York Times' charges about him -- that he is naive and
that he overlooks atrocities -- beyond any possible doubt.

The High Representative needs to see it as part of his duties to enforce
the Genocide Convention, to enforce the Security Council resolutions
mandating the surrender of indicted war criminals, and to require that all
parties, including the Bosnian Serbs, meet the obligations of Annexes 4, 6,
10 and 11 of the Dayton Peace Agreement to turn those responsible for the
Srebrenica massacres over to The Hague for trial.

It is already time for human rights groups and supporters of the Tribunal
to express their concern about whether Mr. Bildt intends to do anything to
enforce the provisions on war crimes in the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Tribunal officials should obtain a satisfactory answer from Mr. Bildt
immediately, or speak out publicly if the answer is less than fully
satisfactory. Members of the European Parliament will have the opportunity
to question Mr. Bildt in January on this issue. Members of the U.S.
Congress and the Canadian Parliament should demand the same opportunity the
following week. Human rights groups should ensure that their elected
representatives ask tough questions that need to be answered now, before
Mr. Bildt carries out his job the way he sees it.

Tom Warrick
Coalition for International Justice

Thanks to someone in The Hague who pointed out to me an article that
originated in Sunday's Washington Post about the performance of Carl Bildt.
The article, by John Pomfret, is headined "Political, Civilian Efforts Off
to Slow Start in Bosnia." (Partial text in block quotes; comments begin at
the left margin.) The story leads:

At Sarajevo's battle-scarred Fero-Elektro building, the lights
were on and somebody was home, but it wasn't Carl Bildt.

On the second floor, officials from Bosnia's Ministry of Trade
paced the hall, reams of documents cradled in their arms.
Upstairs, aid workers hatched plans to improve life in Bosnia.
Somebody had been smokijng marijuana in a bathroom. Somebody
was listening to rock 'n roll behind a door.

Busy as it was, the scene was not what was supposed to be
going on in the downtown building. The two floors were supposed
to be occupied by people working for Bildt, a former prime
minister of Sweden who has been named chief international
diplomat in Bosnia and assigned to coordinate implementation of
the civilian and political provisions of Bosnia's peace plan.
But Bildt's team has not arrived in Sarajevo and has done little
work elsewhere. One important deadline stipulated in the
Dayton plan's political provisions has been missed, and Western
diplomats warn that the window of opportunity pried open by the
early success of the military side of the agreement could soon
slam shut.

"They don't even have a contract signed for their offices
yet," a Bosnian official said. "Soon they may be homeless like
the rest of us."

The pace adopted by Bildt and his staff, as well as other
groups, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, that are critical to the implementation of the Dayton
plan, is being watched closely because of the immense amount of
political, economic and humanitarian work that must be done if
peace is really going to come to Bosnia.

And it must be done quickly. ...

Pomfret accurately describes the stakes:

Western diplomats worry that if only the military annex
succeeds, the tenuous links written into the political side of
the peace plan to keep Bosnia a single country will collapse --
leading the Serb side to merge with Serbia and the Croats to
break their federation with the Muslims and join Croatia. The
beleaguered Muslims would be left in the middle, and the very
thing that the U.S. government said it wanted to prevent in
Bosnia, the re-drawing of international borders and the
creation of a purely Muslim mini-state in the heart of Europe,
would occur.

An aide to Bildt defended his chief, saying he had only
decided to take the job several weeks ago. "We are setting up
the structure now," he said. Western sources said Bildt had
originally planned to conclude a holiday vacation and return to
Sarajevo on January 8 but that pressure, particularly from the
United States, forced him to move the date to next Wednesday

[January 3]. ...

The aide is probably Michael Steiner, a German who, by all accounts, is
good on the war crimes issue. >> Does someone know Bildt's whereabouts
since December 9? << When they say "return to Sarajevo,"
when was Bildt last in Sarajevo? Before Dayton, perhaps?

"It's too early to make an evaluation, but Mr. Bildt has not
done very much," said Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic at a
news conference Thursday. ...

Zoran Kacman, a Serb official in the Serb-controlled suburb
of Grbavica, echoed his view. "We've had lots of promises
from these men but that's all they are, promises," he said
earlier this week. "Show us some results." ...

Something on which the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Serbs agree.

Western diplomats say the reasons for the slow pace of
political change in Bosnia vary from diplomatic wrangling
between France and the United States over key appointments
in the bureaucratic hierarchy to an easygoing culture shared
by international bureaucrats secure in their jobs.

An example of diplomatic quarreling has been the experience
of the OSCE, a security group that includes the United
States. ...

An OSCE source said France held up the appointment of Robert
Frowick, the head of the OSCE's Bosnia mission, by almost a
month because Frowick is an American and France wanted the top
post. The source said Russia also slowed the process because
it sought one of the top deputy positions -- for human rights.

So far, the source said, none of the three key deputy
positions -- for human rights, elections and arms control --
has been filled. ...

Everything that we had feared about Carl Bildt is coming true.

Opinions expressed/published on BosNews/BosNet-B do NOT necessarily
always reflect the views of (all of the members of) Editorial Board,
and/or moderators, nor any of their host institutions.